INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, UDAIPUR vs. DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (SOUTH), UDAIPUR

In the result, both the above appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) who has deleted the said demand by stating that the VFPMCs are not contractors under Section 194C, as they are formed under the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953, and function as self-help groups for forest conservation and development. The payments made to VFPMCs are not contract payments but are reimbursements for work done under the joint forest management policy of the State Government.

TDS, no penalty is leviable u/s 271C on the assessee. 13. Even otherwise, for argument sake, even if it is assumed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, UDAIPUR vs. DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST SOUTH, UDAIPUR

In the result, both the above appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

TDS, no penalty is leviable u/s 271C on the assessee. 13. Even otherwise, for argument sake, even if it is assumed

ITO (TDS), BHILWARA vs. M/S.HADPAWAT ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. , CHITTORGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad386/Jodh/2019 (Assessment Year- 2011-12) Vs M/S. Hadpawat Enterprises The Ito (Tds) Bhilwara (P) Ltd.40-A, Pratap Nagar Chittorgarh (Raj) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Jdhh 00781 E

TDS), BHILWARA VS M/S. HADPAWAT ENTERPRISES PVT LTD. CHITTORGARH ‘’1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST,DUNGARPUR vs. ITO (TDS),, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

penalty u/s 271C to office of additional CIT, TDS Rage, Udaipur with separate covering letter.” 6. Being aggrieved by the AO the assessee

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST,BANSWARA vs. ITO, TDS,, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

penalty u/s 271C to office of additional CIT, TDS Rage, Udaipur with separate covering letter.” 6. Being aggrieved by the AO the assessee

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORET,BANSWARA vs. ITO, TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

penalty u/s 271C to office of additional CIT, TDS Rage, Udaipur with separate covering letter.” 6. Being aggrieved by the AO the assessee

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (SOUTH),UDAIPUR vs. ITO (TDS), UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

penalty u/s 271C to office of additional CIT, TDS Rage, Udaipur with separate covering letter.” 6. Being aggrieved by the AO the assessee

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (SOUTH),UDAIPUR vs. ITO (TDS), UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

penalty u/s 271C to office of additional CIT, TDS Rage, Udaipur with separate covering letter.” 6. Being aggrieved by the AO the assessee

THE DEUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST,RAJSAMAND vs. ITO (TDS), UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

penalty u/s 271C to office of additional CIT, TDS Rage, Udaipur with separate covering letter.” 6. Being aggrieved by the AO the assessee

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (NORTH),UDAIPUR vs. ITO (TDS), UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

penalty u/s 271C to office of additional CIT, TDS Rage, Udaipur with separate covering letter.” 6. Being aggrieved by the AO the assessee

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (NORTH),UDAIPUR vs. ITO (TDS), UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

penalty u/s 271C to office of additional CIT, TDS Rage, Udaipur with separate covering letter.” 6. Being aggrieved by the AO the assessee

JAI PRAKASH SUWALKA,UDAIPUR vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

TDS without waiting for disposal of first appeal levied penalty u/s 271CA of Rs. 531,158/- for default in TCS. Aggrieved

DEEPAK KUMAR RAJORIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), BIKANER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Assessing Authority Tax Was Paid & Adjust From Tds The Appellant Was Aware Of The Fact That There Is Any Form By Filing Which The Penalty May Be Dropped So The Penalty Was Never Leviable In This Case Therefore The Penalty U/S 270A May Please Be Cancelled. 3. The Appellant Prays For Justice & Relief. 4. The Appellant May Please Be Permitted To Raise Any Addition Or Alternative Ground At Or Before The Hearing.”

penalty u/s 270A. That the appellant had already surrendered that wrong deduction claimed earlier before assessing authority Tax was paid and adjust from TDS

SIDDHARTH AGARWAL,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blesiddharth Agarwal Assistant Commissioner Of 28, Polo Ground, Income Tax, Cpc, Tds Udaipur - 313001 Udaipur Pan No. Akgpa 4183 N Assessee By Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Advocate (Virtual) Revenue By Smt. Runi Pal – Cit-Dr (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 28.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 17.02.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal [Hereinafter Referred To As Cit(A)] Udaipur – 2 Dated 10.06.2024 With Respect To Assessment Year 2015-16 Challenging Therein The Sustaining The Levy Of Fee U/S 234A Of The Act By The Ao By View Of Rectification Order Dated 12.06.2022 Passed U/S 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Amounting To Rs. 28,600/- & Interest Of Rs. 16,016/- Totalling To Rs. 44,616/-, Although The Amended Law Was Not Applicable For The Year Under Consideration Because It Was Applicable Only With Effect From 01.06.2015. Asst. Year: 2015-16 2 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Appellant Assessee Filed A Rectification Application U/S 154 Of The Act Before The Acit, Cpc-Tds, Vaishali Ghajiabad For Tds In Form 27Q For Financial Year 2014- 15 With Respect To Quarter 4, Subsequently Rectification Order Was Passed On 12.06.2020 Determining Late Filing Fee/Penalty Of Rs. 28,600/- U/S 234A & Interest Of Rs. 16,016/- U/S 220 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Has Been Confirmed By Ld. Cit(A). Ignoring The Fact That Ao Did Not Have Power To Change Fee U/S 234E While Processing Tds Returns & Hence In Absence Of Enabling Provisions, Levy Of Fee Could Not Be Deducted In The Course Of Intimation Issued U/S 200A Prior To 01.06.2015. The Ld. Ar Prayed For Deleting The Fee & Interest Levied By The Acit, Cpc.

penalty u/s 234E in the intimation order passed u/s 200A for Assessment Year 2015-16 with respect to it, TDS

MANISH SHARMA,KOTA vs. JCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Date Of Hearing.

penalty. As noted above, the AO had found that it was the admitted case that the assessee had defaulted in deduction of TDS

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK ,JODHPUR vs. ITO, (TDS)(II),, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Boradpunjab National Bank, Vs Ito, R.R. Singhvi, Advocate, Tds (Ii), “Rajhans” 1St A Road, Jodhpur (Rajasthan) Sardarpura, Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Jdhpo2161F Assessee By None Revenue By Shri S.M.Joshi, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing 20/03/2023 Date Of 21/03/2023 Pronouncement

TDS that taxes due has been paid by the deductee assessee. However, this will not alter the liability to charge interest u/s 201(1A) till the date of payment of taxes by the deductee assessee or the liability for penalty

KIRAN JAIN,BHILWARA vs. ITO, WARD-1, TDS,, BHILWARA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

TDS are applicable on purchase of immovable property which is contrary to the material facts as placed on record. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 79,500/- on account of non-deduction of tax at source, interest & penalty

JYOTI MALIWAL,BHILWARA vs. ITO, TDS, BHILWARA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

TDS are applicable on purchase of immovable property which is contrary to the material facts as placed on record. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 79,500/- on account of non-deduction of tax at source, interest & penalty